Anne Rice leaves Christianity

[Radical Dreamer]

Someone called for me? :O

You guys are doing a super awesome job in this thread, but I would really rather we didn't go down that road here (not saying you were, but I'm just hoping to prevent further replies to that largely unrelated facet of this thread). XD Keep up the rest of the discussion though!

[Cognitive Gear]

So, for everyone's reference, since no one else seems to be familiar with the term:

"Anti-life" can refer to two things:

1) being for the death penalty.
2) being for abortion.

It can be used for either or both. I imagine that she is using it in the "for the death penalty" sense here.

[ich1990]

Okay, here we go. XD First of all, yes, we are all weird and messed up. Her point is that the "weird and messed up" part of modern Christianity is being hailed as good and holy and a necessary doctrine to be a Christian. She thinks these things are intrinsically part of the religion. Whether that is true or not, it's how she feels (and how I feel to a large degree)...

We're messed up, yeah, but we admit it and know we're wrong. What she's saying is that what she's seeing as wrong, as a sin, is being held in some Christian circles as "You should totally think that way. That's the right way to think.

So you are one hundred percent sure that all of your doctrine is completely correct? We are all weird and messed up, and sometimes we don't even know it. Sometimes it takes years to realize it. Sometimes we promote things and God later convicts us and shows us our grave error. It has happened to me before, and it will happen again in the future. That is what grace is for. Hate the sin, yes, but give grace to the sinner.

One, the Crusades were thousands of years ago. We weren't personally involved. This is a bit different from things that are being done and said right now. Second, not everyone comes to this distaste for the label immediately. For me it didn't happen until a year or two ago. The church is especially good at making the label "Christian" be intrinsically tied to belief in Christ. Heck, look at what SubtleDoctor was saying up there about "I don't understand how she can say she believes in Christ but doesn't want to be a Christian." Again, the church has done an excellent job of making "belief in Christ" mean "Christianity" even though this isn't the case at all. It may have taken her a few years to realize that this wasn't true, and then realized she can dump the label but retain the beliefs.

I thought it best not to mention "Christianity's" more recent offenses, as per board rules. Thus, the ancient Crusades.

As for your second point. I see what you mean and agree.

So, for everyone's reference, since no one else seems to be familiar with the term:

"Anti-life" can refer to two things:

1) being for the death penalty.
2) being for abortion.

It can be used for either or both. I imagine that she is using it in the "for the death penalty" sense here.

Also, it could mean being for war, which is yet another possibility. She could have stood to be more a good deal more specific.

[Cognitive Gear]

Also, it could mean being for war, which is yet another possibility. She could have stood to be more a good deal more specific.

That is true. I haven't heard it used that way, but now that you mention it that makes perfect sense.

Also, here is a copy of a blog post she just recently made:

Important Information On Anne's Decision to Quit Christianity in the Name of Christ

Anne's Statements Regarding Christianity as Posted:

For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being "Christian" or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten ...years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.
07/28/10

As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I'm out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of ...Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.
07/28/10

My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn't understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.
07/29/10

I quit Christianity in the name of Christ on this page so that I could tell my readers I was not complicit in the things that organized religion does. I never dreamed others would be so interested, or that they would feel the need to talk about their own religious struggles. But they do. And the public conversation on... this is huge, and I think important.
08/08/10

I think that she explains her reasoning a bit better here. I do think that she is purposefully avoiding clarifying some of the vagueness, since some of those positions would be bound to end the discussion altogether for some people.

[Nate]

I sent it in a PM to airi so as to avoid debate, but since Phil brought it up...I'll state it quickly here. XD Christianity being anti-life can refer to:

1. Anti-environmentalism
2. Pro-war
3. Pro-death penalty

She could be talking about any one of these three or even all three...or one other I mentioned in my PM to airi, but will refuse to mention here in the interest of avoiding huge debate. XD

So you are one hundred percent sure that all of your doctrine is completely correct?

Well, no, but there is doctrine that quite clearly can't possibly be correct. I'm gonna Godwin here, sorry, but I can't think of a better example...if someone said that the Holocaust was supported by God, I think we can safely say that they are absolutely 100% wrong and that God certainly is not pro-Holocaust.

We obviously can only speculate as to what exactly was said but I'd be willing to bet it was along the lines of "If you're really Christian then cut ties with your son" or something like that. I would hope everyone here can agree that this is absolutely wrong as far as Christianity goes, but the church was probably saying this and adding "The Bible commands you to do it and if you don't you're not really a Christian." AGAIN, this is pure speculation. I don't know what happened, but it seems likely this is the case. And if it is, then it's understandable and easy to see why she would feel this way, that this "weird and messed up" part is good in their eyes, and therefore (in her opinion) all of Christianity as a whole.

Hate the sin, yes, but give grace to the sinner.

I don't know how to take that statement anymore after a lot of reading the Bible. XD It sounds nice in THEORY but eh...not really practical.

I thought it best not to mention "Christianity's" more recent offenses, as per board rules. Thus, the ancient Crusades.

Oooh, good point. Okay then, fair enough!

[Cognitive Gear]

Well, no, but there is doctrine that quite clearly can't possibly be correct. I'm gonna Godwin here, sorry, but I can't think of a better example...if someone said that the Holocaust was supported by God, I think we can safely say that they are absolutely 100% wrong and that God certainly is not pro-Holocaust.

Interestingly, there were plenty of people who believed just that during WWII. (And I would imagine that there are still those who think so, such as WBC)

[TheSubtleDoctor]

Makes sense to me. I don't see what's confusing about that at all. She's getting rid of the label, not her beliefs. One can still write without being an author. One can still sing without being a singer. One can still play video games without being a gamer. So why is it so hard to accept one can still follow Christ without being a Christian?

I know I lot has happened in this here thread since this particular post, but I only wanted to address this minor point. Writing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a writer. The same holds for singing and gaming in relation to being a singer and being a gamer]Christian n - One who believes or professes the religion of Christ[/quote]

Now as for this...

Heck, look at what SubtleDoctor was saying up there about "I don't understand how she can say she believes in Christ but doesn't want to be a Christian."

No, I can see how someone might hold certain beliefs about Christ but not be a Christian. To be fair, what I said earlier was that I don't see how she can remain committed to following Christ (both holding a certain, particular set of beliefs AND performing certain actions based on those beliefs) and also not be a Christian. As I said above, this is like saying, "I want to move my own chess pieces so that you cannot move any of your pieces without your king being taken, but I don't want to put you in checkmate. I don't like the label checkmate." Tough.

[Nate]

She can follow Christ without being a Christian, just like I said. You state "following Christ is a necessary AND sufficient condition for being a Christian." Yes, I agree 100%. Writing is a necessary AND sufficient condition for being a writer. Never heard of a writer who didn't write. But you can still write, and not be a writer.

You can follow Christ without being Christian. The Jehovah's Witnesses are an excellent example of people who follow Christ but have beliefs that make it impossible for them to be Christian. Thus, we can safely conclude being Christian is not a requirement for following Christ. As such, it is easy to see how one can refuse to carry the label but still be a follower.

this is like saying, "I want to move my own chess pieces so that you cannot move any of your pieces without your king being taken, but I don't want to put you in checkmate. I don't like the label checkmate." Tough.

You can do that. Why can't you? I will move my own chess piece so you cannot move any of your pieces without your king being taken, and thus put you in schachmatt. There, I did it without using the label. And before you say "That's just German for checkmate!" I ask you this...which language existed first, German or English? Clearly, the answer is German. Thus, "checkmate" is just English for "schachmatt."

Language changes and evolves as time goes by. Try going up to a black person today and calling them a negro or colored. You will probably get punched in the face. But 50 years ago, if you had called a black person that, it would have been totally fine. It is not fine today, however. The words gained negative connotations, language evolved, now they're taken as a bit insulting.

There are already groups who have tried to dump the label "Christian" though I don't think it ever really caught on. I remember one video on Youtube that was a Mac/PC parody where one guy was like "I'm a Christian" and the other was "I'm a Christ-follower." Now to be fair it was a stupid video, but it proves my point that the word "Christian" does not have exclusive claim to people who follow Christ. It is completely simple to quit being a Christian and still follow Christ.

[Radical Dreamer]

You can follow Christ without being Christian. The Jehovah's Witnesses are an excellent example of people who follow Christ but have beliefs that make it impossible for them to be Christian. Thus, we can safely conclude being Christian is not a requirement for following Christ. As such, it is easy to see how one can refuse to carry the label but still be a follower.

Mmmm, I would disagree here. I don't wanna get too far into it on the main boards, but I don't think comparing following Christ with Jehovah's Witness is all that accurate of a comparison. Some of the JW beliefs are pretty far-removed from what Christ taught, after all. As far as I'm concerned, terming oneself a "follower of Christ" is really just another way of calling oneself a Christian, sans the negative connotation. Either way, regardless of the terminology one would choose to apply to themselves, we're all part of the same Church, covered by the grace of the same God.

[Nate]

Oh some of their beliefs are out there, to be sure. I don't deny that (which is why I said they can't be Christian). But they definitely follow Christ. In fact I remember one of Jack Chick's favorite ploys to get people to be "KJV-only" is to go "Well Jehovah's Witnesses use the NIV so that totally proves that the NIV is Satan-inspired and the KJV is the only true word of God!"

I'm not entirely sure if they believe that Jesus is both God and man (wiki is unclear on that point) but they do believe Jesus is the son of God and died for mankind's sins. Except they think he was killed on a torture stake, not a cross. Which is pretty weird.

Anyway, it's a bit of a non-sequitur from my point, which is they use the same Bible at least a few people here may own. Their doctrinal beliefs are way out there, I don't deny that, and again, I said they definitely aren't Christian. Still, with the same Bible, it's obvious that they're following Christ in a sense, they're just way off on interpretation. This is more what I was getting at.

Anne Rice is different, I think, in that she doesn't have crazy interpretations, she is just angered by her church and therefore Christianity in general. I really don't see what part of following Christ requires you to identify yourself as Christian, though. It's just a label, it's not an intrinsic part of the belief. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "You must call yourself a Christian or else you cannot follow Christ." I don't see that anywhere.

Now I feel like I'm channeling Ryan with the whole words are just words and subjective, but I guess in this case it's true. If I build something to sit on I can still sit on it even if I don't call it a chair. Maybe I'll build something that doesn't look at all like a chair and people will be like "What is that?" and I can say "It's something I sit on" and they might go "Oh like a chair?" But it isn't a chair, it's something I created, and I can still sit on it even if it isn't a chair.

I hope that makes sense...and I'm willing to bet Doc has posted since I started this reply so now I'll probably have to go back and edit this.

EDIT: Or not.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

Nate: First of all, let me say that I see and agree with your point about Jehovah's Witnesses. To them, they are following Christ, yet they are not Christians. Referring to Mrs. Rice, specifically, though, I believe that the New Testament gives ample justification to the idea that following Christ entails being part of a community of believers: the church (the Body of Christ). Mrs. Rice seems to be saying that she isn't happy with certain things (I don't think she says that the church doesn't hold/teach the truth, just that she is unhappy with it), so she's "out."

She can follow Christ without being a Christian, just like I said. You state "following Christ is a necessary AND sufficient condition for being a Christian." Yes, I agree 100%. Writing is a necessary AND sufficient condition for being a writer. Never heard of a writer who didn't write. But you can still write, and not be a writer.

Actually, writing is only a necessary condition for being a writer. All writers write, but not all who happen to write are writers. If writing were both necessary and sufficient, then anyone who wrote would automatically be a writer. This, as you pointed out, is just not so.

You can follow Christ without being Christian. The Jehovah's Witnesses are an excellent example of people who follow Christ but have beliefs that make it impossible for them to be Christian. Thus, we can safely conclude being Christian is not a requirement for following Christ. As such, it is easy to see how one can refuse to carry the label but still be a follower.

I guess all I can say on this point is whether Jehovah's Witnesses are truly following Christ (not only in word) is an open question.

You can do that. Why can't you? I will move my own chess piece so you cannot move any of your pieces without your king being taken, and thus put you in schachmatt. There, I did it without using the label. And before you say "That's just German for checkmate!" I ask you this...which language existed first, German or English? Clearly, the answer is German. Thus, "checkmate" is just English for "schachmatt."

Oh goody...language games...



You've had a philosophy course or two, no?

Whether its checkmate or schachmatt, these signs refer to the same concept.

The following is not an argument]Language changes and evolves as time goes by. Try going up to a black person today and calling them a negro or colored. You will probably get punched in the face. But 50 years ago, if you had called a black person that, it would have been totally fine. It is not fine today, however. The words gained negative connotations, language evolved, now they're taken as a bit insulting.[/quote]If you are truly comparing the term negro to the term Christian...then I cannot touch that. I don't think that is a fair comparison.

It is completely simple to quit being a Christian and still follow Christ.

I totaly understand what you are saying, but I have no idea if Mrs. Rice means this or not. As has been pointed out, her statements are fairly vague.

[Nate]

I believe that the New Testament gives ample justification to the idea that following Christ entails being part of a community of believers: the church (the Body of Christ).

Fair enough, but you don't need to go to a building and hear a dude preach. The Bible does say somewhere (curse my laziness!) that wherever two or more gather in His name, He will be there. The concept of the church in the NT isn't referring to a building or even an organization, just fellowship of believers...or at least that's how I see it.

Actually, writing is only a necessary condition for being a writer. All writers write, but not all who happen to write are writers. If writing were both necessary and sufficient, then anyone who wrote would automatically be a writer. This, as you pointed out, is just not so.

Okay. I think I got confused when I made that last post. x.x You are right about that, so yeah. Dunno anything else to add to that.

To me, the word/term/name Christian and the concept of a Christian (a person holding/doing whatever beliefs/actions one has to hold/perform to actually, metaphysically be a Christian) are inseparably connected.

At least you said it was a preference and applied only to you, but that is the problem. To me, they're not inseparably connected. I don't see how they possibly could be connected. There was no concept of Christianity before Jesus came and did what He did, so it's not like it's an immutable unshakable foundation of the universe or anything, so it can't possibly be connected as far as I can see. It's a word, and words change. If human civilization got wiped out and only a handful of people survived and discovered copies of the Bible and followed it but called it "Biblality" and called themselves "Biblists" (which is stupid I know) I don't think God would judge them and say "Well you believed my word, and tried to live lives pleasing to me, and accepted my son as your savior...but you didn't say you were Christian so sorry, you're going to Hell." That would be ridiculous.

The word means nothing. It's a human construct invented (originally) to insult but was later embraced as a descriptor of a set of beliefs. There's nothing stopping someone from creating a new label or discarding the old one. It happens a lot, I mean I don't remember anyone calling a movie a "talkie" for ages (despite the fact that movies with sound were called that when the technology was brand new).

"Christian" is more than some social label]
Oh I agree. It is not a social label nor a subculture label. It is a label that describes a loosely defined set of religious beliefs. :p Okay, yeah, I know what you're getting at, but again. It was a word invented by human beings to simply describe theological beliefs. It's not an intrinsic or inseparable part of the beliefs.

Besides, the word "Christian" started out as a derogatory insult. This means the early followers of Christ did NOT call themselves Christians. They must have called themselves something else. If the word "Christian" is so metaphysically connected to the belief in Christ, why did the first Christians not use it? Were they not really believers in Christ? This is proof enough that the label is not connected to the beliefs in any sense.

Negative connotations that the word has for twenty-first century Americans between the ages of 18 and 35 should not trump such a tradition.

So would you mind if I called you gay? For years, gay meant "happy." However, the word has much different connotations in the twenty-first century. If you went around calling yourself gay all the time, people would have a very different opinion of you that you might not want them to have.

Words change their meaning and connotations, and I don't see anyone saying we need to take back the word "gay" or anything. It just became a natural evolution and progression of language.

I don't see anything wrong with a label/word that gets negative connotations being dropped. It's happened a lot. The a-word (y'know, a**) used to have the connotation of an animal, a donkey. The word slowly gained a more negative and dirty meaning, and hardly anyone calls donkeys that anymore. The word gained a negative connotation, and it was dropped, and eventually became a taboo word. Dropping words that gain negative connotations is standard for English at least, and probably other languages too.

If the term Christian made it through the Crusades and the Inquisition, surely it can endure our own social issues (not to diminish them).

The term "Christian" made it through those because the church at the time was hopelessly and horribly tied to the government, not by its own merits. If the government and church had not been in bed with each other during those centuries, the term "Christian" may very well have been dropped or lost, so this isn't really a good point.

If you are truly comparing the term negro to the term Christian...then I cannot touch that. I don't think that is a fair comparison.

I used it as an example of a word that was acceptable at the time but grew to be viewed as negative. I don't see how it isn't a fair comparison. The word was accepted even by blacks. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Movement that the term became unacceptable.

[Htom Sirveaux]

I have the perfect solution: She no longer wishes to call herself a "Christian" but still follows a set of religious beliefs and convictions she can no longer put a name to. So why not just make up some goofy, unpronounceable symbol for it, like Prince did when he called himself . That'll be much better!

[Adorima]

Jim and TheSubtleDoctor, you're My Heroes!!!

I think Anne Rice is an excellent writer and an intelligent lady, but I'd have to say I agree with what you guys said about her. Couldn't have said it any better myself if I tried!

I'm a bit busy right now but I'll reply back later on. But really though, excellent responses from both of you, each and every one.

[Atria35]

For anyone who's interested, Hulu has a documetary up on Anne Rice, titled: Anne Rice: Vampires, Witches and Bestsellers

[Fish and Chips]

SUDDENLY, FISH OUT OF NOWHERE.

You can do that. Why can't you? I will move my own chess piece so you cannot move any of your pieces without your king being taken, and thus put you in schachmatt. There, I did it without using the label. And before you say "That's just German for checkmate!" I ask you this...which language existed first, German or English? Clearly, the answer is German. Thus, "checkmate" is just English for "schachmatt."

Actually, checkmate is the English phonetic derivative of the Arabic Shāh Māt, "The king is helpless." While you can argue the English got it from the Germans, the Germans themselves would have picked it up from the Arabic States, so the term is still distinctly Middle Eastern in origin, not Germanic.

HE GONE.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

[quote="Fish and Chips (post: 1422990)"]SUDDENLY, FISH OUT OF NOWHERE.Actually, checkmate is the English phonetic derivative of the Arabic Shā]

Outta nowhere, it's frikken feldspar!

[Atria35]

IN any case, I seen to remember someone saying that Anne Rice had been reduced to writing Jesus fanfiction.....

http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp10232005.shtml

Warning- site may have a few questionable things on it. And no, I can't direct-link the image. Not without re-hosting, and I'm not sure about the legality of that.... Which is why I'm saying that some of the links on that webpage are questionable.

[Htom Sirveaux]

Funny strip, Atria, but you might wanna take that down. Some of those links lead nowhere good.

[CrimsonRyu17]

Or rather, you can just direct link the image.

[Atria35]

Or rather, you can just direct link the image.

As explained above, I'm not sure about the legality of re-hosting the comic on there.

[Syreth]

Aside from the theological side of things... and probably aside from the real point of this thread, I suspect that book sales had something to do with why this was publicized.

[Shao Feng-Li]

EDIT: Eh, never mind.

[Adorima]

Just re-posting a post from FB. Very pertinent to this conversation.
It's from Fr. Robert Barron, educated at Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and the Catholic Institute of Paris.

Below Quote Sums Up Why I’m Still A Catholic:

“How much I must criticize you, my church and yet how much I love you!
You have made me suffer more than anyone and yet I owe you more than I owe anyone.
I should like to see you destroyed and yet I need your presence.
You have given me much scandal and yet you alone have made me understand holiness.
Never in the world have I seen anything more obscurantist, more compromised, more false, yet never have I touched anything more pure, more generous or more beautiful.
Countless times I have felt like slamming the door of my soul in your face – and yet, every night, I have prayed that I might die in your sure arms!
No, I cannot be free of you, for I am one with you, even if not completely you.
Then too – where should I go?
To build another church?
But I cannot build another church without the same defects, for they are my own defects. And again, if I were to build another church, it would be my church, not Christ’s church.
No. I am old enough. I know better!.......................​..
When I was young, I did not understand why Jesus chose Peter as his successor, the first Pope, even though he abandoned Him. Now I am no longer surprised and I understand that by founding his church on the tomb of a traitor He was warning each of us to remain humble, by making us aware of our fragility. ”

- Carlo Carretto, from “I Sought and I Found”

[seaglass27]

Me: May I ask a stupid question?
The rest of CAA: Sure, Jordan. We're used to it.

Okay, cool. Umm... Who is Anne Rice?

EDIT: Didn't realize that the above post was a gravedig. Sorry.

[Atria35]

It's okay. Anne Rice is the woman who wrote the book 'Interview with a Vampire'. It's her best-known book (probably her best book, period), and the movie is considered a pretty good adaptation and was a huge hit when it came out.

[Adorima]

Fr. Barons full response to Anne Rice leaving...

For those apprehensive to hear from a Catholic priest, he's a self-admitted Anne Rice fan.

[The Doctor]

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." John 3:17

How sad everyone knows John 3:16, but few remember the verse after it...

Anne says she's seeking God, she'll find Him. Let's keep praying for her.